Post navigation

I call it apartheid, what would you call it?

Apartheid: meaning “separateness”, or “the state of being apart”

Racialize: to impose a racial interpretation on; place in a racial context. To perceive, view, or experience in a racial context. To categorize or differentiate on the basis of membership in a racial group.

Chris Read and the Rotherham Labour Party have done more to divide the communities of Rotherham and encourage racism than the EDL marches and a thousand fascist groups could ever hope to achieve.

They have done more to racialize politics here than the BNP/UKIP combined.

While targeting their words and actions at the smallest of right wing groups, they have lost sight of the vast majority, the working people, the unemployed, the elderly, the disabled, the young, the vulnerable.

People of all ethnicities and religions, who simply want equality, a good education for their children, a clean and safe environment, promotion on merit, justice and the application of law.

Instead they posture meaninglessly and use EDL and other right wing groups as an opiate, a means of forgetting their own impotence and incompetence. Be aware his political correctness is self serving…to keep his national political ambitions on track.

In his latest cabinet appointment, he has created a crazy situation wherein:

4 (50%)out of 8 Cabinet Posts are filled from only 3 of the 20 Wards that make up the Borough. All three Wards are from the inner town.

2 (25%) out of the 8 eight cabinet members come from one Ward: Boston Castle

That Ward was referred to the national Labour Party for bullying and intimidation of members. One of the alleged bullies is now standing in a Sheffield Court accused of rape, and if found guilty the Party will be called to account.

The messages sent by the Cabinet additions are clear, and the focus on central Rotherham will hasten the process where the outer areas of the town look more and more towards elsewhere for entertainment and shopping. Central Rotherham is another step closer to being a ghetto. With limited interaction between ethnicities.

I used the term Apartheid…read the definition again.

The Kashmiri leaders who seek political promotion no longer need the support of the broad range of the electorate, across races, religions and cultures. They can muscle their way into Labour Party selection by buying Ward nominations through enrolling biraderi members, and effectively apply a 3 line whip to make them vote (allegedly some using illegal voting practices.)

They don’t have to live by the rules that apply to others.

Apartheid: meaning “separateness”, or “the state of being apart” What do you think?

12 thoughts on “I call it apartheid, what would you call it?”

I hate to say this but Enoch warned us about this. Importing cheap labour to do the dirty work had consequences. I would have rather paid people more to do the boring dirty work and had full employment, Even after the war soldiers coming back didn’t have work and many ladies wanted to remain employment, so why did we import all and sundry at the time.

Personally I would prefer the Africaans word “Apartheid” to keep its original meaning – an (institutionalised ) system of government that once applied in the Republic of South Africa (RSA).

This does not mean that I don’t accept your criticism of Rotherham Labour.
This is damning:
“4 (50%)out of 8 Cabinet Posts are filled from only 3 of the 20 Wards that make up the Borough. All three Wards are from the inner town.
2 (25%) out of the 8 eight cabinet members come from one Ward: Boston Castle
That Ward was referred to the national Labour Party for bullying and intimidation of members. One of the alleged bullies is now standing in a Sheffield Court accused of rape, and if found guilty the Party will be called to account.”

It is simply that Apartheid is not what you are describing of Rotherham – Apartheid had a legal basis, (as did segregation in much of the US South), whilst what you describe is more of a local stitch-up – akin to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall

Although some of what is said has some relevance, on the whole are opinions of an opinion of an issue of an opinion.

What is being suggested by some commentators tonight, the changes are now too fast.

I am not a constituent of the Boston Castle ward, I would be proud to be represented by the representative Cllrs.

I don’t care how they were elected at party level, what I care about is they were fairly elected at constituency level.

The colour of the Cllrs maybe questioned by some, the fact they have way more life qualifications than probably most of their respective counterparts is being overlooked.

If people are still commenting on biraderyism in the Labour party selection process, would it not also be possible that the so called biraderyism, after all what has been unearthed in Rotherham would also want the best from their respective community to represent them.

Why is it so difficult to accept something that is being over seen by commissioners as well, would they place novices in an environment that was above their colour.

“I don’t care how they were elected at party level, what I care about is they were fairly elected at constituency level.”

Really? So you don’t mind if the people who put themselves forward for election get there by corrupt means? That’s quite enlightening. And before you start, no I’m not suggesting they themselves are corrupt, it’s the selection process I question.

“The colour of the Cllrs maybe questioned by some, the fact they have way more life qualifications than probably most of their respective counterparts is being overlooked.”

And again I ask, really? We are talking about Boston Castle here aren’t we? Where one of the other candidates for selection was Jayne Senior? Are you seriously suggesting that either of the Councillors you’re referring to have more to offer on that score than she has? REALLY???? Good grief.

Perhaps it is the case that their “colour” got them the job over Jayne Seniors “life qualifications”. But no, that couldn’t possibly be. Could it?

I don’t care what “colour” my councillor is, but I want to know that they are the right person for the job, and they got there by fair means. In the case of Boston Castle I believe the electorate may have been sold short on both scores.

When were the selections made, and when did the people of Rotherham find out who the source of Andrew Norfolk was.

Biradaries isn’t that what they do, some of the largest Biradaries the trade unions, don’t they do the same.

Weren’t we supposed to have received a Milliband as leader of the labour party, instead we received a Milliband.

Prospective leader Ed Balls his ticket for leadership was taken away from him by his local biradari.

Respective leader of the Labour party JC, elected how ever the Labour party biradari saw fit.

The comparison made in regard to more “life Qualifications” read it again, was made in reflection of other elected Cllr’s.

I still don’t care how the Labour party chose it’s candidates, what matters is they were elected fairly at ward level.

Where are we going with “sold short on both scores”. Both candidates have made significant changes in the field of disabilities on a regional and national basis. As far as I can recall hasn’t one recieved an OBE in this field.

So really the party is to blame, at the party level. And the electorate at ward level, dumb and dumber made it possible.

You have an opinion, I have an opinion I hope we can continue to discuss.

“You have an opinion, I have an opinion I hope we can continue to discuss.”

Sure thing.

Obviously Jayne Senior could only have been selected for one of those positions, but was passed up for both of them. Why? Did Boston Castle have a desperate need for two disability campaigners to represent them in the Council? Or is tackling CSE in the town a more pressing need at this time do you think? Hence Boston Castle and the town in general were sold short. I’m not trying to downplay the importance of their work as disability rights campaigners, all I’m saying is it would have been more useful to have selected Ms Senior and one of the other two. That way, two areas of expertise would have been represented.

I didn’t mention Biraderis or Unions but since you’ve brought the matter up, I don’t quite see how you equate the two. As far as I’m aware Biraderis don’t have elections, don’t have AGMs, don’t publish accounts etc…. in other words there is no accountability and no transparency.

“I still don’t care how the Labour party chose it’s candidates”

You should. We aren’t talking about electing people to run the local fishing club here, we are talking about public service. It’s essential that everything is above board, including the selection of candidates or how can we trust them to do the right thing by us once they are elected? Of course, it doesn’t always happen that way, but it should.

“So really the party is to blame, at the party level. And the electorate at ward level, dumb and dumber made it possible.”

Sorry for the special effects (biradarism) it was placed to reflect sub cultures, opinions, conclusions and so forth.

I do believe that JS was more than an adequate nominee for selection, sometimes when we do say,” I don’t care ” on the contrary it can be said to confirm that there is more to it than that of which meets the eye.

The electorate at party level can be very stubborn, like any employer put the best persons forward for consideration, how ever this is on the basis of CV (qualifications, experience, life skills etc).

When the penultimate date arrives for interview (in this case selection for candidacy, another important factor, time to place a candidacy on the ballot paper), the nominations of all the best candidates are placed in front of the selection committee. They then receive an apology from a candidate (maybe a good/great candidate) who will not be available at the selection (interview).

The selectors are well versed in choosing candidates not only on merits, but the most important, commitment to ward members (they will share through thick and thin, in short a promise that they will be represented) that they will be always there.

The biggest shame is JS fell at the second hurdle.

You are right to criticise biradarism in some regards (no AGM’s, accountability etc) the fact that we are talking about mainstream politics and real accountability, would show candidates who were best judged on permissibility and commitment in the selection process were put forward.

How much worse would it be for accountability of the said party was to put forward a candidate for what ever reason was not there.